Film vs. Digital Documentary: SIDE BY SIDE

Yeah, I think it should be a choice.

It's like an artist should be forced to do their art digitally instead of painting on a canvas.
 
its more expensive painting your art digitally than drawing on a canvas. you need a computer,software and a digital pencil(good Wacom's are expensive.).when there was no digital there was only film. there was no choice. so everything was expensive. some directors couldnt even direct because their movie was not worth spending money.

to directors with a budget of 100-200 millions it should be a choice. the budget is already so high that a normal film camera will not make a difference.

but look at hollywood. they are lying how much more money they need for a 3D production. they dont even want 3d cameras with 3d rigs. they rather film on a digital camera and then post convert. hollywood is crazy
 
Well 3D sucks anyway, it's mostly useless in 99% of the movies.
 
I think the issue with filming in 3D in general is the limitations you got with the rigging and the lenses you can use. Sounds like a pain.

for a director, it might be just easier to shoot regularly and then post-convert it even when it was filmed in digital.
 
Film Purist Chris Nolan Predicts Hope For The “Bleak” Digital Future

By JEN YAMATO | Tuesday July 8, 2014 @ 5:30pm PDTTags: Christopher Nolan, Interstellar, NATO

Interstellar director Christopher Nolan has long been a vocal champion of film over digital. But playing Nostradamus in a WSJ op-ed on the future of moviegoing, the filmmaker has softened his stance on the “bleak” digital future months after appealing to theater owners at CinemaCon.



Studios have already largely phased out film prints in favor of digital files. Nolan writes that the digital future of exhibition will reduce films to “content” that can be easily viewed on mobile devices and other alternative screens “and the idea would be that movie theaters should acknowledge their place as just another of these ‘platforms,’ albeit with bigger screens and cupholders.” With content digitized, theaters of the future will be able to track best-selling films and program accordingly: “A movie’s Friday matinees would determine whether it even gets an evening screening, or whether the projector switches back to last week’s blockbuster. This process could even be automated based on ticket sales in the interests of ‘fairness.’” As a result, he says, it’s smaller films that will wind up with the short straw as audiences opt between home viewing and the more “familiar” studio fare.
Nolan predicts consumer desires will shift again as moviegoers seeking the shared experience of going to a theater and theater owners entice them back with upgrades. “The theatrical window is to the movie business what live concerts are to the music business — and no one goes to a concert to be played an MP3 on a bare stage.” It’ll be spectacle event films and new filmmaker voices that entice moviegoers back to the grand theaters of the future, he says.
Like, say, Interstellar? Just three months ago at CinemaCon, the longtime champion of 35mm filmmaking declared his love for film over the digital revolution that’s taken over the industry in recent years. “I’m a fan of any technological innovation, but for me, it’s going to have to exceed what came before, and it hasn’t yet,” he said then. He warned NATO members at the April confab that the theatrical presentation of his sci-fier — shot on anamorphic 35mm and in Imax — was of utmost importance. “I really think on this film the technical aspect of how this film is presented is really going to be more important than on any film I’ve done before, so that means getting into partnership with the studios and theaters.”
Two years ago at the Produced By conference the Dark Knight trilogy filmmaker called digital filmmaking “devaluing of what we do as filmmakers.” Nolan now welcomes the possibility that cinema and new voices can flourish in the brave new digital future — eventually. “Whether photochemical or video-based, a film can now look or sound like anything,” he writes. “It’s unthinkable that extraordinary new work won’t emerge from such an open structure. That’s the part I can’t wait for.”
 
Apparently, I'm supposed to sign up to be able to view it. Too bad...

My bad; sorry. Though... when I Google "Wall Street Journal Christopher Nolan" the link takes me to the entire article. :huh:
 
My bad; sorry. Though... when I Google "Wall Street Journal Christopher Nolan" the link takes me to the entire article. :huh:

I just copied and pasted the bolded into Google, and sure enough, the whole article shows up (with 'Enjoy your free sample!' in small print) but clicking on the link gives me the first few lines, and the rest is hidden under a subscription ad.

*shrug* Now we all know how to read it, anyway.
 
remember news that Claudio Miranda was testing cameras for Tomorrowland? this is how they did it. nice to see that they didnt just shoot 5 minutes on sunday. they did a long test shoot with 7 cameras. badass.

AZPVs3G.jpg

9hp2dra.jpg

IQziWb2.jpg


https://vimeo.com/131442291
 
Just thought I'd mention that VIII, like VII and IX, will be shot on film. Rian confirmed it today.
 
its more expensive painting your art digitally than drawing on a canvas. you need a computer,software and a digital pencil(good Wacom's are expensive.).

Ah no way. Once you have those digital tools that really aren't all that expensive then you have everything you will ever need. When painting on canvas you have to buy new paints and new canvas every time you finish a piece.
 
Anyone else think that digital has gotten worse in the last 5 years? Everything looks too clean and sterile now with the exception of The Batman and Dune where they found a great way around it by making it look like film.
 
Anyone else think that digital has gotten worse in the last 5 years? Everything looks too clean and sterile now with the exception of The Batman and Dune where they found a great way around it by making it look like film.

I'm no cinematographer, but I don't know if it's necessarily the cameras itself, but the lighting and lens options from directors and DP's. But it's also digital cameras not fitting the stories as much and being used as cheaper options and mandates like Netflix. The more "content" we've been seeing too creates more stuff looking like this. When you flood the market, chances are there is less talent.

Joker stands out to me as a movie that doesn't look bad, but it's the wrong look. For a movie trying to look and be like a 70s Taxi Driver type movie, it looks too clean and colorful and modern. That's a movie that should be on anamorphic like The Batman which created a gritty look with digital the right way.

There's also this A24 look I've noticed. Everything is either lit naturally with softer contrast and using LED lighting. If it doesn't look like a Petco commercial, they tend to look like that which is getting lazy and uninspired. It's ironic because Greg Fraser adopted that look several years back but it was out of his background, is evolving while everyone is just trying to look like him or Bradford Young movies.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"